🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Vialls wrote:
>
>As for the cost of implementing Kyoto, I believe that more money can be
>found for environmental change than you suggest. Many of the
>environmental improvements that can be made actually benefit companies
>and governments financially (waste reduction, etc.), for example. To say
>that we can't afford environmental improvements today is to push that
>cost onto tommorow - with inflation. 

If the costs of Kyoto compliance as so minor, why did Janet Yelsin,
Clinton's Economic Advisor REFUSE to give the Clinton Administration's cost
estimate to Congress last summer?  

Kyoto would require America to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases 31%
below the level projected for 2010.  That means cutting emissions by 552
million metric tons per year. This is equivalent to all current emissions
from either the transportation sector, or the utilities sector, or
industry. There is no feasible way to do that without putting our economy
in the tank.

Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth: "The only real good technology is
no technology at all.  Technology is taxation without representation,
imposed by our elitiest species (man) upon the rest of the natural world."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------